"Contend for the Faith": a study of Jude

[DCR]

Here's the first of hopefully some more Bible study threads.  Anyone is welcome to start threads on a book or passage that you are interested in studying and/or discussing.  This one is just an experiment to see how it goes.  I'll start off by posting a few verses and ask some questions and make some comments.  Anyone is welcome to answer those questions or ask your own questions and make your own comments.  When the discussion dies down on the passage, we'll move on to the next set of verses.  I will probably mainly quote from the NASB but may refer to other versions from time to time.  Here goes...

¹Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:
²May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.

³Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

⁴For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

This is just to get it started.  When I have time later, I may look up some information on the background of this epistle.  But, if memory serves, I believe it is thought that this Jude was a brother of Jesus (as was the James mentioned above).  If that is true, then it is interesting how he identifies himself as a "bond-servant of Jesus Christ."  If he was indeed the physical brother of Jesus, then he could have claimed it... but, my thought on that is that he didn't want to put himself on the same level as Jesus.  That had to be difficult (in a way) for someone to recognize the brother he grew up with as Lord and Savior. 

After his introduction, he tells those he was writing to that they should "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints."  What does this mean exactly?  What does he mean by "contending for the faith"?  What does he mean by "the faith"?  And, what does he mean by "once for all handed down to the saints"?  I may refer to some other versions and commentaries later on this.  But, does anyone have any thoughts on that?

The next verse (verse 4) may offer some insight on that.  He says that certain persons (ungodly persons) had crept in unnoticed who turned the grace of God into licentiousness (which is basically unrestrained immorality).  I believe this may be a reference to what were referred to as "Antinomians."  There were some who were apparently turning the grace of God into a license to live however they wanted.  Paul touched on this in Romans 6:1, where he wrote, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?  May it never be!"  Also, Jude says that they "deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."  Could he be referring to some of the Gnostic groups that had started to rise in that day?  I may look up some more information about this later as well.

Oh, by the way, what does Jude mean when he said that they were "long beforehand marked out for this condemnation"?

Anyone is welcome to comment on any of the above.

(Edited to correct a couple of type-os)

[peck]

DCR,
You are making a real good setting for discussion...I'm thinking that most of us would agree that "the faith" is a faith based upon repentance and dying to sin through faith in Jesus as the son of God...accepting grace but not repenting is not "the faith"...

Hearing other comments will be interesting and profitable...Maybe not getting into the background of this book would be better..

God bless,Peck

[WileyClarkson]

I think this could be a very interesting study if we can get some real involvement from others.  Jude and 2 Peter are closely related.  One of the interesting things is how a particular phrase from Jude has been taken out of its context and used by one side of followers to justify blasting another side because of minor differences in faith.

Here's the scripture relating to that:

After his introduction, he tells those he was writing to that they should "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints."  What does this mean exactly?  What does he mean by "contending for the faith"?   What does he mean by "the faith"?  

The phrase "contending for the faith"?   has been removed from its context in the last half of the 20th century to present and applied to the activity of attacking the side that has a different interpretation of some scriptures but no difference in the core beliefs.  Many have been hurt by this practice.  

Jude uses the term "contending for the faith"? as going after the false teaching of an element that had invaded the church in many locations in the 1st Century.  That element is mentioned in Peter, 1 & 2 Timothy, Galations, and possibly 1 Cor.  It was the reason women in Ephesus were forbidden to teach and the Ephesian elders were warned in Acts 20 that some of the eldership would fall away from what had been taught (that was before 1 Timothy was written and the false teaching had invaded the chuch in Ephesus).  This problem could be called proto-gnosticism an early form of the Gnosticism that developed in the 2nd Century.  They were pure heretical beliefs which were not the same as todays beliefs that are attacked in the name of "contending for the faith"  The following is from a commentary I have that sums up some of Gnosticism's beliefs that infiltrated the church as pagans became Christians and then fell into the false ideas that they brought along with them out of the pagan beliefs by combining the beliefs and calling it special knowledge.  

This false teaching seems to be the idea that through knowledge a person can find his or her identity and relationship with God. Thus the false teachers were claiming to have special wisdom and insight—the inside track to finding God. This was an early version of Gnosticism, a heresy that would hit the church full force in the second century. Full-blown Gnosticism emphasized that special knowledge provides the way to spirituality. This knowledge was attained through astrology and magic and was available only to those who had been initiated into the Gnostic system. Another Gnostic belief, that all matter is inherently evil and only the spiritual and nonmaterial is of itself good, led to the idea that God could not have created the world and would have no contact with it. Therefore they taught that God, in Christ, never could have become a human person. If matter is evil, how could God ever be united with a human body? Thus they denied either the humanity or the complete deity of Christ (in their view, he couldn't have been both).

Gnosticism was a false belief and heresy in its purest form and Jude was saying to fight for the true faith and drive out the gnostic beliefs.  This is not the application of this phrase today, however.  Today we don't fight over the humanity or the complete diety of Christ, or against the other beliefs of gnosticism that held that Eve came before Adam, it was sinfull to have children, don't drink any wine, etc.  Those are pretty much universally accepted among our fellowship.  However, we contend for the faith in things such as musical instruments/a cappella, supporting homes for children, Christian schools and universities, one cup verses many,  praise teams and choirs, and women teaching an immersed male Christians or being allowed to lead a prayer in the worship or serve the Lord's Supper.

My, my, how we have perverted what Jude said and meant!

[notofmyown]

I must say, I'm always writing here from work and I have no acess to my notes and no real time to quote lots of scripture....I did a study on this book along wit 2 Pet. for our cong not to long ago......In answer to your question "once for all given to the saints" if I remember (not likely) but if I do the word is "hapax" if its not the meaning is still the same ...it refers to something that is proclaimed in its fullness at one point and not something that is inteneded to be continually added upon in the future....

my favorite point in Jude is the proclamation at the end in the greek saying literally that out Lord will be there waiting for us in heaven leaping for joy when He sees us.   Amazing

[Eric]

I have always had trouble with the opening of Jude. Because of letters I have received, this opening sounds dishonest. I wanted to write about one thing, but I can't because I have to write about this other issue.

This is one of the times "faith" is used that is different than some of the other uses. One of the things that we need to continue to examine is how these different words are used.

Eric

[DCR]

Wiley,

As always, you bring up some very interesting information.  We did a study of 1 John in our adult Sunday School program a couple of years ago.  Gnosticism (or Proto-Gnosticism) was brought up as being an issue that was brewing during the times that these epistles were written.

Jude and 2 Peter are closely related.

Then, 2 Peter might be a good followup study.

[WileyClarkson]

One of my commentaries says that either Jude was written referecing 2 Peter or 2 Peter was written referencing Jude.  They then gace the dates for Jude being written after 2 Peter and for 2 Peter being written after Jude. 

Either way, studying one should also mean following with a stury opf the other since they have similarities in purpose.

[DCR]

In answer to your question "once for all given to the saints" if I remember (not likely) but if I do the word is "hapax" if its not the meaning is still the same ...it refers to something that is proclaimed in its fullness at one point and not something that is inteneded to be continually added upon in the future....

...which seems to underscore the importance of understanding what that "faith" was in its original form.  I suppose that is what all the fuss is about in modern Christianity.

[DCR]

I have always had trouble with the opening of Jude. Because of letters I have received, this opening sounds dishonest. I wanted to write about one thing, but I can't because I have to write about this other issue.

Interesting point.  My take on it is that in those days it took much more of an effort to send a letter to someone.  They didn't have the U.S. Postal Service like we do today.  To send a letter meant actually appointing someone to go on a journey to the destination where the letter was to be sent.  So, one sending a letter had to use his opportunity wisely.  Perhaps Jude was writing or was planning to write a more positive letter about their "common salvation."  But, in the mean time, he became aware of some problems his audience was facing, which needed to be addressed.  I think I know what you mean though.  But, I don't think that is the case with Jude here.

[Salt & Light]

I have always had trouble with the opening of Jude. Because of letters I have received, this opening sounds dishonest. I wanted to write about one thing, but I can't because I have to write about this other issue.

I'm not sure that Jude changed the intended subject. Without faith one cannot have Salvation. (Eph 2: 8)

Jude is warning of the eminent encroachment of apostasy. The apostasy is a departure from the faith, that is, from the apostles' doctrine. We are being warned that we will need to "earnestly contend for the faith

[yogi bear]

I hope everyone has InstaVerse to quickly read these crossreference scripture I came across and I am posting if not you can get it here 

Who is this Jude?
Matt. 10:3  Mark 3:18  Luke 6:16  John 14:22   Acts 1:13

Is he also called Thaddeus? Is he Jesus brother?

What is "THE FAITH"?
Ac 6:8-10  Ac 9:22  Ac 17:3  Ac 18:4-6  Ac 18:28  Php 1:27  1 Th 2:2  1Ti 1:18  1Ti 6:12
2 Ti 1:13  2 Ti 4:7-8  Rev 2:10  Rev 12:11

What does  "ONCE DELIVERED" mean?
Ac 20:27  1 Co 15:3  Gal 2:5  2 Pe 3:2

Just some references I found that I would toss out there and see what you all think.

[mattmom]

<<Who is this Jude?
Matt. 10:3  Mark 3:18  Luke 6:16  John 14:22   Acts 1:13

Is he also called Thaddeus? Is he Jesus brother? >>

If this Jude was the same "Judas, not Iscariot" referred to in John 14:22, and if he was also the apostle Thaddeus, he couldn't be Jesus' brother.  John 7:5 says that even his own brothers did not believe in him.

[WileyClarkson]

If this Jude was the same "Judas, not Iscariot" referred to in John 14:22, and if he was also the apostle Thaddeus, he couldn't be Jesus' brother.  John 7:5 says that even his own brothers did not believe in him.

The writer of this Jude identifies himself as "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James

[DCR]

I have always had trouble with the opening of Jude. Because of letters I have received, this opening sounds dishonest. I wanted to write about one thing, but I can't because I have to write about this other issue.

I'm not sure that Jude changed the intended subject. Without faith one cannot have Salvation. (Eph 2: 8)

Jude is warning of the eminent encroachment of apostasy. The apostasy is a departure from the faith, that is, from the apostles' doctrine. We are being warned that we will need to "earnestly contend for the faith

[mattmom]

If this Jude was the same "Judas, not Iscariot" referred to in John 14:22, and if he was also the apostle Thaddeus, he couldn't be Jesus' brother.  John 7:5 says that even his own brothers did not believe in him.

The writer of this Jude identifies himself as "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James

[OldDad]

I think there might be a clue to what "the faith" was that Jude called the believers to contend for in Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15 about his "delivery"...

³For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

It would have been those crucial teachings that would have been attacked in any attempt to discredit Christ and the church - and not their ecclesiology.  That's why Paul said the DBR was "of first importance".

OD

[s1n4m1n]

I don't think "the faith" can be limited to set of propositional statements. In addition to the apostle's doctrine that some have referenced it also includes "the prayers", "breaking of bread", and "fellowship" of Acts 2:42. IOW, Christianity is a way of life with its customs and manner of living. As such it is to be "received", sort of like when you go to a foreign country and start following their customs, sometimes out of necessity, because it just won't "work" any other way there.

[DCR]

Bill brought up some good passages regarding "the faith."  This one in particular:

2 Timothy 1
   ⁸Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, ⁹who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, ¹⁰but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, ¹¹for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher.
   ¹²For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.  ¹³Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.

I added the verses leading up to verse 13, since they offer some insight.  Paul refers to "the testimony of our Lord."  We have been saved according to God's "purpose and grace" which "now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."

[DCR]

I don't think "the faith" can be limited to set of propositional statements. In addition to the apostle's doctrine that some have referenced it also includes "the prayers", "breaking of bread", and "fellowship" of Acts 2:42. IOW, Christianity is a way of life with its customs and manner of living. As such it is to be "received", sort of like when you go to a foreign country and start following their customs, sometimes out of necessity, because it just won't "work" any other way there.

I see your point that "the faith" shouldn't be boiled down to a series of propositional statements... although, it could be said that the creeds (i.e. the Nicene Creed, etc.) attempted to do just that.  There is usually an inclination to state the "essentials", especially in the face of heterodox teachings.  But, Christianity is a way of life, and I suspect that "the faith" encompasses that.  But, how much of "the faith" is really about principle and less about procedure?  Does principle ever get lost in procedure?  We can talk about the apostolic tradition of the Lord's Supper for example.  If we get caught up in the "procedure" and forget about the "principle", then our emphasis may center on how to do it in the correct way, on the correct day, etc., and less on what its purpose and meaning is.

[s1n4m1n]

I don't think "the faith" can be limited to set of propositional statements. In addition to the apostle's doctrine that some have referenced it also includes "the prayers", "breaking of bread", and "fellowship" of Acts 2:42. IOW, Christianity is a way of life with its customs and manner of living. As such it is to be "received", sort of like when you go to a foreign country and start following their customs, sometimes out of necessity, because it just won't "work" any other way there.

I see your point that "the faith" shouldn't be boiled down to a series of propositional statements... although, it could be said that the creeds (i.e. the Nicene Creed, etc.) attempted to do just that.  There is usually an inclination to state the "essentials", especially in the face of heterodox teachings.  But, Christianity is a way of life, and I suspect that "the faith" encompasses that.  But, how much of "the faith" is really about principle and less about procedure?  Does principle ever get lost in procedure?  We can talk about the apostolic tradition of the Lord's Supper for example.  If we get caught up in the "procedure" and forget about the "principle", then our emphasis may center on how to do it in the correct way, on the correct day, etc., and less on what its purpose and meaning is.

I agree, yet it works both ways "faith without works is dead" ya know. By infusing what you do with meaning it makes your actions that much more "worthy" (for lack of a better word).

Maybe its just me but I think its the rare person or group that does things just because its the correct procedure. Look at the churches that have strict liturgy (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) they also have the deepest underlying "principles" behind what they do.

[DCR]

Faith without works is dead.  However, I do perceive a Biblical principle, while not stated in Scripture explicitly, that... works without faith is also dead.

Certainly, emphasis on correct procedure (letter) does not mean that the principle (spirit) is not there.  I think that fallacy is oftentimes made.  Some would say that if you emphasize procedure, then you must be legalistic and/or ritualistic.  That's not necessarily the case, as you point out.

[mdd344]

Clearly "the faith" exists. It exists in Jude 3, it exists in other passages such as Eph. 2:8-10, as DCR pointed out (you can find the article in the Greek in that passage).

It can be obeyed (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5)) and people can strive to turn others away from it (Acts 13:8; Gal. 1:23).

It can be continued in (lived in) (Acts 14:22) and congregations can be established in it (Acts 16:5).

It is that which Paul preached (Acts 24:24), and one can be strong in it or weak in it (Rom. 14:1). People can know whether they are living in accordance with it (2 Cor. 13:5).

We are justified by it (Gal. 2:16) and it was not revealed fully until the NT times from Pentecost onward (Gal. 3:23).

Unity in it was reached in the first century, and it continues (Eph. 4:13). It can be yearned after and one can live striving for it (Phi. 1:27). Righteousness comes when one hears and obeys it (Phi. 3:9).

It is taught (Col. 2:7), and it can be departed from (1 Tim. 4:1). One who does not provide for his own has denied it (1 Tim. 5:8).

Coveting after money causes one to depart from it (1 Tim. 6:10). Vain worldly philosophy can cause one to err from it (1 Tim. 6:21).

It can be kept (2 Tim. 4:7). One may need to be rebuked to be sound in it (Tit. 1:13).

Continuing in it can enable one to resist the devil (1 Pet. 5:9).


These are not all of the NT references, but they are most of them. Just from reading these verses it is clear to me that 'the faith' involves the 'apostles doctrine' which is nothing more than the teaching of Christ, which He gave to them while on earth and from Heaven (John 16:12-13; 2 Pet. 3:2). That includes the entirety of the NT.

[notofmyown]

I love how Jude doesn't pull out the trump card of being the brother of Christ. Rather he calls himself a bond-servant or "doolos" (sp) one who is a loving and willing servant of Christ not a forced slave.  

[s1n4m1n]

Faith without works is dead.  However, I do perceive a Biblical principle, while not stated in Scripture explicitly, that... works without faith is also dead.

Certainly, emphasis on correct procedure (letter) does not mean that the principle (spirit) is not there.  I think that fallacy is oftentimes made.  Some would say that if you emphasize procedure, then you must be legalistic and/or ritualistic.  That's not necessarily the case, as you point out.

Sure, I agree both ways.

[WileyClarkson]

The following is a good reference to what was working its way into the church of the first Century and what Jude is writing that they need to be on guard and fighting against.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

[DCR]

Moving on...

⁵Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.  ⁶And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, ⁷just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

One point of interest that I notice here is how he says that the "Lord" saved the people out of Egypt.  This was right after he identified "our only Master and Lord" as Jesus Christ.  In comparing different versions, I noticed that the ESV translates verse 5 this way:

Jude 1:5
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Now, the original Greek appears to be "kurios", which means "Lord."  But, I find it interesting that the translators of the ESV would explicitly use the name "Jesus" there as being the one who saved a people out of Egypt.  I'm not sure why this was done... whether it was a manuscript issue... or if they wanted to point to the fact that "Lord" is in reference to Jesus (especially in light of verse 4).  At any rate, it seems to point to Jesus' place of being with God and being God (John 1:1) eternally from the beginning.

Verse 6 is where Jude starts his discussion of angels, which we will discuss more in depth later, I suspect.  Angels had apparently abandoned their proper place and were now in prison.  Could this be a reference to Satan and his angels?  Demons?  I've been told that Jude, in this epistle, alludes to the book of Enoch, which is in the Apocrypha.  Apparently, there is extensive discussion of angels there.  But, I have never personally read it.  I'll try to find more information about that as we go along.  Anyone else is welcome to comment on that if you have more information.  I believe there is some speculation about some of the events alluded to in the book of Genesis... especially, as it relates to the "sons of God" (possible reference to angelic beings) taking unto themselves "daughters of men", the mystery of the "Nephilim", etc. (Genesis 6:4).  There are a lot of different directions we could go on that.  I just also noticed the connection made between Sodom and Gomorrah and these angels... where men "went after strange flesh."  That could be a similar sense in which the "sons of God" went after the strange flesh of the "daughters of men."  Hmm. 

[DCR]

Just as an aside regarding the book of Enoch (which is apparently quoted from in Jude 1:14-15), I found the following comments interesting from Wikipedia:

The Greek language text was known to, and quoted by nearly all, Church Fathers. A number of the Church Fathers thought it to be an inspired work, particularly Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, based on its quotation in Jude. However, some later Fathers denied the canonicity of the book and some even considered the letter of Jude uncanonical because it refers to an "apocryphal" work (Cf. Gerome, Catal. Script. Eccles. 4.).

The Jewish Sanhedrin at Yavneh c. 90 AD removed this book from its Scriptures. Partly due to this, the book was discredited after the (Christian) Council of Laodicea in 364. The Greek text was subsequently lost.

The early Christian father Tertullian wrote c. 200 AD that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews, because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.

[peck]

Good job DCR....will be looking forward to verses 8-10...

One observation that I've noticed so far is that the house of Jesus was very religious...James was zealous..Jude,not much information ...but he found it necessary to write this book because of his insight into seeing the body of Christ encouraging our sinful nature..thus leaving the faith centered upon Jesus and repentance in his name....Maybe making Jesus something like the gods of the pagans...slipping backwards...I wonder where Mary was at this time....Did Jesus give them information about Moses and Celestal beings as they discussed religion in the home...Jude seems to have a special knowledge ...just curious..

God bless,Peck

[DCR]

Thanks, Peck.

Good observations.  Regarding the knowledge Jude had of Moses and the angels, etc. (of which we've just scratched the surface), I suspect that the people of the day had information that has long since been lost to us.  I suspect there was a body of oral tradition and history that has been forgotten in the last two thousand years.  What precious writings we do have provide us glimpses of what was known at the time.  There was an indication in some of the information I've read that there was a Greek translation of the Book of Enoch that was once widely circulated but has since been lost.  The oldest known manuscripts are apparently an Ethiopic version, which is considered canon by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

I am going to try to hunt down an online reading of the Book of Enoch.  My interest is definitely sparked.

[WileyClarkson]

The book of Enoch  translated from Ethopic in the late 19th Century.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

[WileyClarkson]

here is an interesting site that any one interested in the ancient writings that are not a part of the Bible will find very helpfull.

http://www.thelostbooks.com/

[peck]

Thanks Wiley...

DCR....It's good to know that Jude type ancient writings excite you..Zeal for knowledge of the supernatural is interesting and young folks like you have more energy than us old folks to look up stuff and let us gleen that knowledge..I get more lazy every day..

Just from observing Jude's line of thinking...Do any of you believe that Jude is being influenced by the book of Enoch?

God bless,Peck

[DCR]

The book of Enoch  translated from Ethopic in the late 19th Century.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

Thanks, Wiley.  I was already looking at another site which supposedly had a version translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls... http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/thebookofenoch.htm.  The Ethiopic version apparently has the most complete set of manuscripts, though.

[DCR]

Just from observing Jude's line of thinking...Do any of you believe that Jude is being influenced by the book of Enoch?

We'll get into this hopefully a little later.  But, in verses 14-15, Jude actually quotes the Book of Enoch.  So, to answer your question... yes, that seems to be the case.  The church of the early centuries was apparently not in agreement on the canonicity of Jude and Enoch.  Some who saw the Book of Jude as belonging in the canon thought that the Book of Enoch should be there as well.  But, by the same token, some who didn't believe that the Book of Enoch belonged thought that Jude didn't belong either because it quoted Enoch.  In our stream of Christianity, Jude made it, and Enoch didn't.  But, in other Christian churches (such as the aforementioned Ethiopian Orthodox Church), Enoch was included in the canon.

[s1n4m1n]

So is the comment that these ungodly men were "long ago marked for condemnation" a reference to OT prophesy related to the Church? Or was it a prophesy that occured since Pentecost?

Or maybe its a reference to what you posted in verse 5, 6, and 7. Not that there was a specific prophesy about these men but that if one looks as the OT one can see the end result of such behaviors.